Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Likewise, for transgenderism or homosexuality, if it can be traced to a neurological problem, then one ought to fix the neurology, rather than taking the position that this is just the way I am and I'm proud to be transgendered or homosexual.

I find this an interesting statement, and it raises questions for me. Let's leave aside the transgendered for the moment, and consider the homosexual.

Suppose that homosexuality is found to be due to a certain neurological "configuration" (which you term "problem," but I'd like to stay away from that language just now, as it may be a bit of question begging). Should the homosexual desire a different sexual orientation? If so, on what basis? Would it necessarily be better for them to adjust themselves, rather than live as a homosexual?

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a neurological explanation for me to still be interested in this question. Whatever homosexuality's root, I take it for granted that it must have some root. And if we suppose that we may one day have the technology (possibly including a better developed science of psychology) to "address" homosexuality, I still wonder whether there's any good cause to do so.

Why should a homosexual want to not be homosexual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding it very interesting and disheartening that so many people calling themselves Objectivists or at least supposedly studying it enough to talk about it on this forum seem to be totally against the idea of normalcy -- as if anything goes, so long as that is the way you are. I mean, why fix anything that is wrong with you? Because there are standards of what is and what is not the proper life of a human being. Homosexuality, transgenderism, synesthesia, schizophrenia, etc. insofar as these are traceable to causes dealing with neurology or psychology (depending on who you ask) are not normal. Primacy of consciousness (I am simply this way mentally) is not the standard. And like I said, that's not the topic anyhow. The topic is what is objectivity and how should the world's authority on Objectivism and objectivity be treated, even if one thinks that he is wrong? In that regard, I recommend the following essay by Chip Joyce:

While I don't think this statement about respect is fully formed, in part giving no examples of whom to objectively respect, I agree with the premises of it.

http://checkingpremises.org/respect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... In that regard, I recommend the following essay by Chip Joyce:

While I don't think this statement about respect is fully formed, in part giving no examples of whom to objectively respect, I agree with the premises of it.

http://checkingpremises.org/respect

In that essay a fragment of a quote from Ayn Rand is given at near the end of the last paragraph

What about being respectful? To be respectful means to afford a special consideration to a person in acknowledgment of their achievements that matter to you. It means to treat them specially. It means to demonstrate in action your intellectual and emotional evaluation, to align your body with your mind, your actions with your ideas, and to show integrity in action to your values, and lastly to be just toward those who have earned and deserve your respect. For “to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement.”

That fragment is half of a pair of contrasted acts.

"—that to withhold your contempt from men’s vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement—"

For Joyce to just give one half of that fragment without the other is selective quoting in service of his rhetoric. He would be more persuasive if he would attempt to be objective and to address the problem of what to do when one finds both virtues and vices in the same man, edit: .. and even when ignorance is not a vice (a moral fault) it can be assessed as a disvalue.

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuality, transgenderism, synesthesia, schizophrenia, etc. insofar as these are traceable to causes dealing with neurology or psychology (depending on who you ask) are not normal. Primacy of consciousness (I am simply this way mentally) is not the standard.

You seem to assume that the burden of proof lies with the homosexual and transgender to justify themselves to you. If so, by what standard? Normalcy? Is that like conformity? I’ve known enough homosexuals that they don’t need to explain anything to me, and as to transgender, I’m not sure how many I’ve met, but I know that I don’t need someone like Wendy Carlos to justify herself to me.

You are now looking at a web page I never expected to write, on a topic I never expected to be pushed into discussing again. But lately I have felt the acrid stings of prejudice and ignorant scorn again. If you don't understand the depth of anger and frustration such an evil causes, you are most probably not Black, nor Jewish, nor Gay, nor Female, nor several other common targets of The Haters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding it very interesting and disheartening that so many people calling themselves Objectivists or at least supposedly studying it enough to talk about it on this forum seem to be totally against the idea of normalcy -- as if anything goes, so long as that is the way you are.

Forgive me, but is the implication here that anyone who reaches different conclusions than you do with respect to homosexuality, or the transgendered, is necessarily therefore not an Objectivist?

As far as "the idea of normalcy"... well, what is the idea of normalcy? I'd like to know what we're talking about before I'm for or agin it. You don't mean that "normalcy" is to be desired for its own sake, right?

I mean, why fix anything that is wrong with you?

It seems right to fix something that is wrong with you (so long as the "cure" is not worse than the "disease"). But are we initially agreed that to be homosexual is to have something wrong with you? Because I'm not at all certain that there's anything "wrong" with homosexuality.

Because there are standards of what is and what is not the proper life of a human being.

And these standards also stipulate the sex of one's sexual partners? How so? And if one is "improper" in this respect, and violates these standards, what is the specific penalty that one should expect to pay?

Homosexuality, transgenderism, synesthesia, schizophrenia, etc. insofar as these are traceable to causes dealing with neurology or psychology (depending on who you ask) are not normal.

I don't quite know how to respond to this, except to say that if homosexuality is "traceable to causes dealing with neurology or psychology," which I think sounds likely, then wouldn't heterosexuality be equally traceable to those same kinds of causes? How do you determine what is "normal" here? Statistical analyses?

Ought one wish to be like others for the sake of being like others? Or is there a specific argument against homosexuality that does not ultimately boil down to "it isn't normal"?

Primacy of consciousness (I am simply this way mentally) is not the standard.

Are you quite certain that "primacy of consciousness" is at issue here?

And like I said, that's not the topic anyhow.

Heh. :) Well, we're talking about a few things now, it appears. You don't have to respond to anything you don't wish to, but I'm responding to comments you'd already made in the thread, and which I therefore considered "fair game."

The topic is what is objectivity and how should the world's authority on Objectivism and objectivity be treated, even if one thinks that he is wrong?

And I like that topic, too. Come to it, can we discuss the phrase "the world's authority on Objectivism and objectivity" for a moment?

What does it mean to be "the world's authority" in this manner? What specific powers does such an authority have, by virtue of being an authority?

Who gives the "world's authority" that title? By what power? And for the uninitiated, by what means would they come to either agree or disagree that the "world's authority" was an "authority" in fact?

In that regard, I recommend the following essay by Chip Joyce:

While I don't think this statement about respect is fully formed, in part giving no examples of whom to objectively respect, I agree with the premises of it.

http://checkingpremises.org/respect

Without trying to respond to the whole essay, this gives me an opportunity to remark on something that has been a bit of an itch. The last sentence reads:

Finally, Objectivism holds hero worship to be a value for man's life, which is a most intense form of respect.

I'm aware that Rand used the term "hero worship," and I'm certain that it can be argued for in certain senses: like "a most intense form of respect"...? Perhaps.

But truth be told, it makes me uncomfortable. I do not consider myself inclined to worship, as I typically understand the term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Joyce to just give one half of that fragment without the other is selective quoting in service of his rhetoric. He would be more persuasive if he would attempt to be objective and to address the problem of what to do when one finds both virtues and vices in the same man, edit: .. and even when ignorance is not a vice (a moral fault) it can be assessed as a disvalue.

You are picking nits, considering that he made an explicit reference to Ayn Rand's presentation of Justice, available via the Ayn Rand Lexicon. But, in the context of this thread, it does all depends on if you think Dr. Peikoff was engaged in ignorance, which I don't.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

But I don't see this as the real issue, [...]

You seemed to before. I'm glad I talked you out of it. :-)

[...] the real issue is that DR. Peikoff thinks a sex change is a voluntary mutilation of one's own body, which he understands to be greatly immoral; versus DH's position that it is the way to fix the pre-existing non-voluntary problem; and that instead of DH coming out and saying she disagrees with LP regarding the voluntarism of the sex change, she said that he was engaged arm chair philosophizing at its worse and then went on to defend transgenderism without offering any facts to back up her claim. So, this issue is not what should someone with a problem do about it, it is how should one conduct oneself while disagreeing with the leading authority on Objectivism and objectivity?

(emphasis added)

"the leading authority on Objectivists and objectivity". What does that even mean?

That notwithstanding, the implication here is that they DH's "sin" is not that she treated somebody unfairly by, uh, not choosing the exact right words to describe her disagreement, but that the given person was, gasp, Leonard Peikoff.

This smacks of idolatry--as if an attack on LP is an attack on truth. Respect is a personal thing and while I have personally met and chatted with LP once in my life (and I was respectful at that moment) I could care less about this person now nor should I. If LP went KoneyGuy tomorrow, I wouldn't care, and all of the ideas in my head that might have been derived from LP's works would not suddenly reverse themselves and shatter.

By extension, I don't see why I should care about folks like DH not being "nice" to LP. If LP comes out and says he's personally insulted and DH won't be getting a LP xmas card, then fine but that has nothing to do with me.

Hence I am rather suspicious of others saying that LP must be insulted and that we all should be personally appalled by DH and also ignore everything she says for now on because it just became false retroactively.

Yep, smacks of idolatry...

Edited by CrowEpistemologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That notwithstanding, the implication here is that they DH's "sin" is not that she treated somebody unfairly by, uh, not choosing the exact right words to describe her disagreement, but that the given person was, gasp, Leonard Peikoff.

[....]

Yep, smacks of idolatry...

I see that you understand perfectly where the Premise Checkers, et. al. are actually coming from.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, look, it is not an issue of "idolatry" regarding how one ought to deal with Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff; it's an issue of realizing the incredible accomplishment that both achieved with their presentation of Objectivism, the most rational philosophy ever conceived of by man. Maybe I am in somewhat of a unique position on this forum, as I have a degree in physics and philosophy and have studied the history of the world in the context of Western Civilization as I was getting those degrees via my university's core curriculum program. I definitely disagree with their premises, since it was a Catholic university, but it gave me the opportunity to get the facts whereby I could draw my own conclusions about the influence of philosophy on world history. And in that context, Objectivism is the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind and can save civilization from another Dark Ages. With that in mind, and given his book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, morally requires one to take notice if one takes one's own life and reason as the standards. It is an issue of applied justice to treat LP with a great deal of respect, even if one disagrees with him on a particular topic. It doesn't mean don't voice your disagreement, but it does mean that if you disagree with him that you ought to present your side in terms of the relevant facts integrated in a logical manner -- to use the method of objectivity. to not do that, to not follow that method, is to say that you do not take facts and reason seriously; and, of course, this also implies that you will not respect anyone who is rational. To be consistent with reason and Objectivism means that one has to take note when someone has achieved a great achievement like Objectivism and OPAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a long while, there has always been an anti-ARI, anti-Peikoff set that still seems intent on grasping at anything negative and making a big deal of it. However, what one sees over the past few years is a bit different: one sees that people who still respect and admire Peikoff are occasionally speaking out against him. In my opinion, these tiny rumblings of disrespect are merely echoes of Peikoff's own dismissive displays of disrespect for regular Objectivists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be consistent with reason and Objectivism means that one has to take note when someone has achieved a great achievement like Objectivism and OPAR.

Objectivism is not Leonard Peikoff's achievement, as he would be the first to point out were he participating in this discussion. He did write a book about it but that does not put him on the same plane as Ayn Rand.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

And in that context, Objectivism is the greatest thing that ever happened to mankind and can save civilization from another Dark Ages.

[...]

Wrong. Objectivism is a philosophy and by itself solves nothing. Objectivists--and those influenced by them--can save civilization if they so chose. This is a subtle point, but it seems to be the heart of many people's problem with this attitude, which, emotionally (for me at least) is chilling.

But what do I know, I'm a high school drop-out (who probably made more money last year than your 2 PhDs will make you in a lifetime).

As a side note, the completeness and ultimate simplicity of Objectivism is a problem for what is essentially a bloated staff of intellectual overhead. The core of Objectivism (works written before about 1980) provides 99.9% of its value to those who would actively create the Renaissance (businessmen, scientists, teachers, politicians, entertainers, politicians).

To me, somebody with a PhD in Philosophy should either focus on teaching and concentrate on that as a profession unto itself, or on entertainment which is--at root--what somebody like DH does. I simply don't see the value in "making new philosophy" and it would seem that seemingly meaningless spats like the one we're discussing here would cease if we just stopped pretending that they meant to anything to anything useful or real.

Which they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, these tiny rumblings of disrespect are merely echoes of Peikoff's own dismissive displays of disrespect for regular Objectivists.

I think there’s a good example of this in his different statements about voting. In 1992 he endorsed Clinton, while acknowledging that not everyone was going to agree with him. In 2006? It’s easy enough to look it up. Like arteries growing harder with age, he’s become progressively more rigid, and I believe, only interacts with yes-men at this point. This is why his retraction on the Kobe Bryant date rape issue is such a singular event. In that case I think the best way to understand it is to note that while he can still express wild opinions about an imminent (Christian) theocratic takeover, Muslims and the transgender, when he says something that half the population, including up to half his audience, know is obviously wrong, even he can’t ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a long while, there has always been an anti-ARI, anti-Peikoff set that still seems intent on grasping at anything negative and making a big deal of it. However, what one sees over the past few years is a bit different: one sees that people who still respect and admire Peikoff are occasionally speaking out against him. In my opinion, these tiny rumblings of disrespect are merely echoes of Peikoff's own dismissive displays of disrespect for regular Objectivists.

This. As someone who recently has tried to get more involved in Objectivism online (i.e. try to meet others of like mind or at least explore the philosophy better) this is my real issue with LP and sites like Checking Premises. Sorting through this cacophony is a mess and I really have to wonder how many people read Atlas Shrugged, run into this, then throw their hands in the air and walk away.

Writing OPAR can only carry so much weight when one is regularly told that they are not an Objectivist or don't understand it if you don't accept his opinion on [insert Issue Here]. Ninth Doctor's example of how he spoke on the 1992 election versus the 2006 is a good example. To put it bluntly, all the goodwill he has built through his earlier published works would not sustain anyone who regularly uses an argument from intimidation. Nor should it. The fact he does it to a body of people who, by definition, think through subjects before accepting them is shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Writing OPAR can only carry so much weight when one is regularly told that they are not an Objectivist or don't understand it if you don't accept his opinion on [insert Issue Here]. Ninth Doctor's example of how he spoke on the 1992 election versus the 2006 is a good example. To put it bluntly, all the goodwill he has built through his earlier published works would not sustain anyone who regularly uses an argument from intimidation. Nor should it. The fact he does it to a body of people who, by definition, think through subjects before accepting them is shocking.

And the people who insist that we mindlessly bow and scrape before whatever Leonard Peikoff pronounces are only mimicking the argument from intimidation tactic--using a variant leavened by the appeal to authority. You can't disagree with that; it's Leonard Peikoff speaking! Disrespecting him means you aren't an Objectivist! If you check the "date rape" thread, yes you will see reflexive attacks on Leonard Peikoff, but you will also see people willfully ignoring the plain meaning of Peikoff's statements just because they are Peikoff's statements--and others who weren't as bad and could see that there was a problem with the plain text, but nevertheless maintained that it had to really mean something else, based on context (this is Leonard Peikoff, you know who he is, Leonard Peikoff can't possibly be wrong).

There are a number of people on this site who will only chime in to a discussion when they feel the need to accuse people of disrespecting Dr. Peikoff. That selective interest tells us what their priorities are, they have elevated the man over every other issue. And of course this is exactly the game Checking Premises is engaged in. It is difficult enough to counter accusations of cult-like behavior in Objectivism without having such obvious examples of it actually happening--and the practitioners going out of their way to make themselves visible.

Or to put it another way: Is being sufficiently respectful of Leonard Peikoff to satisfy these guys, even when he says something outrageous, truly a valid touchstone of whether someone is or is not an Objectivist? If the answer is no, why? And what does that reasoning say about those who insist it is?

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that occurred to me insofar as we're talking about apparent excommunication of DH from the Church of Objectivism is that we just had a great discussion clarifying, exactly, "What Is and Is Not an Objectivist":

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23201

In this thread LP is used as a reference wherein he advocates a contextual definition and in practically discourages using the label as it is rhetorically fraught with peril.

***

I think the heart of the problem here is that we're conflating the personal and the philosophical.

With that, a solution to this whole mess would be for LP to rename ARI and his other organizations, "Leonard Peikoff". Then removing a link from somebody who insulted him would be a personal tit-for-tat (and I would have no problem with that action per se). Then his statements would be, "so and so is no longer my friend and I'm de-linking him from my site", and not, "so and so is no longer an Objectivist and all past/present/future works from so and so are no longer valid" or whatever.

***

I should also say, for the record, that I actually do think DH misspoke when she accused LP of "armchair philosophizing". First, that phrase is not particularly clear and is somewhat vacuous and thus smacks of name-calling. Second, it wasn't armchair philosophizing but rather armchair doctoring. Third, the real issue is that LP took on the topic at all in any depth rather than dismissing it as an issue outside of philosophy and thus outside of his own vocation.

I most certainly do also sympathize with the emotion might have driven DH to write what she wrote which might have made it harder to stay on message. When a value--a smart, useful LP that writes interesting, useful things that are true--evaporates before your eyes and apparently travels down a path that so many modern-day annoying pundits do, that would tend to make you mad.

Hence my first reaction to this situation and LP's words was chronicled here as, "has he gone nuts?"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Ayn Rand Institute has removed all links from Diana Hsieh on their web site. The time has come to make a choice. Are you with ARI or the group of people who have been mutilating the Objectivist philosophy and insulting Leonard Peikoff?"

Where was this link previously on the ARI site? I just checked, and under "community groups" there's:

Colorado

Front Range Objectivism, Denver, CO

Contact

Diana Hsieh

E-mail

[email protected]

http://www.aynrand.o...ommunity_groups

I suppose that if this disappears in the near future we'll have some evidence for your purge hypothesis.

I just checked again, and there’s been no change on the ARI website. I think enough time has passed that we can now reject the purge hypothesis. Here’s a thought for you Thomas Miovas, when you lie, or in your case, repeat a lie, people find out. As a result, whatever position is opposite to your own gains strength. So, next time you’re tempted to lie about other people is O-land, imagine that you’re pressing the start button on a copy machine that’s going to churn out more Kelleyites.

So as I was saying, heard any more juicy excommunication stories lately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you guys who are complaining that the respect must be mutual before you will respect LP are dropping the context of who is teacher and who is student, and you are also dropping the context of how he answers student's questions during his podcast, which are done in a respectful manner. If you want his respect or any other rational man's respect, then learn how to be Objective. For the umpteenth time no one said don't disagree with Leonard Peikoff. However, if you cannot present your case in a logical, non-contradictory, based on the facts manner, then who should respect you? There is a huge learning curve to Objectivism not only due to the fact that it is a new philosophy but also due to the fact that there is a lot of garbage out there that has to be unlearned. And if you don't think LP deserves respect for presenting Objectivism in his lectures and in OPAR, then you don't have a clue as to their accomplishment. Dr. Peikoff is a philosopher in his own right. No, he didn't create Objectivism, but he thoroughly understands it and presents his integration extremely well -- and it is *his* integration, just as it will be *your* integration when you can do it. So stop bitching about not being respected and earn it already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some of you guys who are complaining that the respect must be mutual before you will respect LP are dropping the context of who is teacher and who is student,...
Nobody said that LP must respect some run-of-the-mill questioner, or even your typical well-read Objectivist, just as much as they respect him. That is not the point at all, so asking "who is the teacher" answers a straw-man.

... you are also dropping the context of how he answers student's questions during his podcast, which are done in a respectful manner.
Quite the opposite. Many of the concrete examples come specifically from LP's podcasts. Of course he usually answers respectfully. Also, it is quite understandable for a person to show frustration at times. In fact, you could even say something that is totally wrong (as in the rape comments) or really rude (as in suggesting that Binswanger and a whole array of Objectivists do not understand Objectivism) and sensible listeners would be fine with that if you came back and explained yourself in a calmer way (as in the rape comments).

Before you answer another strawman, let me be clear: I am not saying that LP is routinely and habitually rude. All I'm saying is that rudeness will sometimes engender rudeness... it's called justice. To get so hung up on the occasional rudeness against LP which is more of a response to his occasional rudeness is unjust. I suspect it is also a diversion where people address the occasional rudeness of a post from someone like DH because they really don't know how to address the philosophical issue.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonard Peikoff has received significant "respect" from me: I've probably given him ~$200 over the course of my lifetime in terms of taped lectures, books, etc. In addition, I spend my valuable time keeping track of his potential new works (passively of course, but still). That too is "respect".

But to me, LP is a "product" in the marketplace, nothing more, nothing less. He's a couple of pages on a Amazon.com.

This discussion reminds me vaguely of Apple and Steve Jobs. They've always had a base of "fans" that "worshiped" their products and Steve in particular. I found this to be retarded, and oddly it actually pushed me away from their products for a long time (now between iPads and iPhones and iPods and laptops we have [holy cow I just counted] 13 of Apple's devices in my home). I bought them [i'm still reeling from that number] because of a simple value proposition. I didn't think, "Steve Jobs was a great American and I owe him my patronage". I saw a product, it had the value I wanted, so I bought it.

To look at LP any differently is weird and strange and/or carries with it some hidden agenda.

To be clear here, I'm not debating whether the criticisms were true or not true or whatever--I'm saying that this is a waste of time worrying about whether LP is or is not "insulted". I don't care, and nobody should particularly care--except for LP himself, who is I would think able to handle things like this (or ignore things this, more likely) himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respect is an aspect of justice, and not to give it to those who deserve it is failing to be a man of justice and integrity and applying objectivity; which, in and of itself, is a vice. It doesn't mean you have to genuflect every time someone you respect walks into the room, but it does mean recognizing him for his accomplishments. So, I think Chip Joyce is on the right track, but he failed to give examples (making the essay less objective itself), so I am including my reply to someone on FaceBook.

"Well, Chip Joyce graduated from the Objectivist Graduate Center and they teach one to give examples to make your idea more clear. By leaving it blank, he is not helping his readers to grasp the concept. He should have given examples of those who a valuable to you who have achieved something you aspire to or at least would recognize as having a great achievement. Implicitly, given the whole thrust of his website, he is talking about Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand; but he could have added the doctor who healed you, the grocery who keeps prices low, your automobile mechanic, your wife (or husband) who shares a lot of your values and has achieved a lot, etc. By failing to do so here and in his previous essays, he is not showing that he knows what objectivity is and how to apply it, which is unfortunate, given his thrust to respect those who can do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a thought for you Thomas Miovas, when you lie, or in your case, repeat a lie, people find out. As a result, whatever position is opposite to your own gains strength.

I got the information from a reliable source, Charlotte Cushman, and neither she nor I realized it was just removing links from Diana Hseih's OList and not her entire information. So, it wasn't a lie, it was a mistake, on Cushman's part, and only later was it corrected by Chip Joyce and others.

As to multiplying Kelleyites, if someone making a mistake is enough to get you to reject objectivity and to side with an anti-Objectivist, then who the hell wants you in the first place? Go side with the devil for all I care, if you are going to be that way about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respect is an aspect of justice, and not to give it to those who deserve it is failing to be a man of justice and integrity and applying objectivity; which, in and of itself, is a vice.

Indeed, but it is questionable that anyone has actually disrespected Peikoff in the sense of not recognizing him for whatever things he has done. What specific actions qualify as disrespectful in regards to what you have observed? One particular thing that seems to have gotten you riled up is the phrase "armchair philosophizing", or any range of things said to harshly criticize what he has said about transgender people. It may seem disrespectful, but it's the truth that he demonstrates has *no idea what he's talking about* in regards to transgender related stuff, and has demonstrated that on many occasions. He has used zero facts, and made a complex matter into something trivial. Is what I said disrespectful? I don't think that's disrespectful in the least, because I'm stating precisely something Peikoff should not be respected for. Not that it means to go burning all the books he has written, but it does mean that I won't go saying "Peikoff is a good guy *because* of the way he exemplifies objectivity on topics of sexuality". He ought to be criticized for what appears to be failing to use methods that he himself has advocaetd. I'm failing to see where there is in fact any disrespect going on.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, but it is questionable that anyone has actually disrespected Peikoff in the sense of not recognizing him for whatever things he has done. What specific actions qualify as disrespectful in regards to what you have observed? One particular thing that seems to have gotten you riled up is the phrase "armchair philosophizing", or any range of things said to harshly criticize what he has said about transgender people. It may seem disrespectful, but it's the truth that he demonstrates has *no idea what he's talking about* in regards to transgender related stuff, and has demonstrated that on many occasions. He has used zero facts, and made a complex matter into something trivial. Is what I said disrespectful? I don't think that's disrespectful in the least, because I'm stating precisely something Peikoff should not be respected for. Not that it means to go burning all the books he has written, but it does mean that I won't go saying "Peikoff is a good guy *because* of the way he exemplifies objectivity on topics of sexuality". He ought to be criticized for what appears to be failing to use methods that he himself has advocaetd. I'm failing to see where there is in fact any disrespect going on.

I think this is fairly argued.

If we look at "respect" as a function (or an application) of justice, then musn't we accord Peikoff the respect deserved for writing OPAR and also simultaneously evaluate his more recent statements regarding the transgendered, or date rape, or etc.? Wouldn't justice necessitate taking all of that together? Not, by way of contrast, and in the name of respect, valuing his positive contributions such that we allow them to cause us to ignore or slight whatever other mistakes he might make.

In other words, can't we come to the conclusion that Peikoff is the man who wrote OPAR, and yet sometimes indulges in armchair philosophy (if we accept that wording, which I'm unsure about), and yet is wrong on the subject of rape (as is my position)? If the respect paid to such a person is a little less unvarnished than that which we might give simply to "Rand's intellectual heir," and the author of OPAR, well... isn't our reformed appraisal more fitting to the reality of the situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the information from a reliable source, Charlotte Cushman, and neither she nor I realized it was just removing links from Diana Hseih's OList and not her entire information. So, it wasn't a lie, it was a mistake, on Cushman's part, and only later was it corrected by Chip Joyce and others.

A mistake? As in, an honest mistake? Then on what basis did Ms. Cushman ascribe a motive to ARI’s action? BTW have we established that ARI ever took any action? Ever deleted any links? Someone say where they were, so we can check it with the Wayback Machine. It looks to me like a lie, from top-knot to shoe sole, and if you don’t like the image of multiplying Kelleyites, if that’s just not a way to get through to you, how about a reference to Pinocchio? The motives and truth standards at work here are plain as the nose on your face.

pinocchio-o.gif

And what do you have to say about the reference to David Kelley on Checking Premises? Do you call that honest?

Edited by Ninth Doctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...